US v Rahimi

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court decision in US v Rahimi upheld a federal gun control law that makes it a crime for people with an Order of Protection against them by a spouse or partner to possess a firearm. This decision provides affirmation and security to domestic and sexual violence survivors in Missouri and across the country.

In the opinion drafted by Justice Roberts, he writes, “We conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

When perpetrators of violent crimes have access to firearms, they are more likely to kill their partners than perpetrators who do not. According to Everytown Reporting, domestic violence perpetrators with firearms are five times more likely to kill their female victims. The decision in the case of US v Rahimi helps promote the safety of victims of domestic and sexual violence by removing the perpetrator’s right to possess a firearm.

The Supreme Court decision does not directly change Missouri’s law, which does not require that a person convicted of a domestic violence offense surrender firearms following the conviction or a protective order. The decision in the case of US v Rahimi provides protections for survivors accessing Orders of Protection in other states.

 

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson

The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson on June 28, 2024, upholds ordinances in Grants Pass Oregon that prohibit people who are experiencing homelessness from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within city limits. The 6-3 decision found that criminalizing homelessness did not violate the US Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The decision in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson allows state and local governments to punish people for experiencing homelessness.

Many people experiencing homelessness have also experienced domestic or sexual violence within their lifetime. More than 90% of homeless women experience severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives, and 63% have been victims of domestic or sexual violence. Limited housing options for people experiencing domestic violence and/or homelessness

In 2022, Missouri passed a similar law, making it illegal for people experiencing homelessness to sleep or camp on state-owned property. The law was ultimately considered unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. The decision in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson provides Missouri the opportunity to resubmit a similar law.

Browne, A. 1998. “Responding to the Needs of Low Income and Homeless Women Who are Survivors of Family Violence.” Journal of American Medical Women’s Association. 53(2): 57-64

 

Moyle v. United States & Idaho v. United States

The Supreme Court dismissed the case of Moyle v. United States & Idaho v. United States, in which Idaho challenged the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and doctor’s abilities to provide abortions to mothers experiencing life-threatening emergencies. Idaho law completely bans abortion with the only exception being to prevent a pregnant person’s death. The ban does not contain exceptions for preventing grave harm to the person’s health.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires hospitals with emergency departments to provide care to anyone who needs it. The United States sued Idaho under EMTALA which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide stabilizing treatments to patients experiencing medical emergencies. Idaho’s strict abortion ban potentially prevented doctors from performing abortion care on patients who need an abortion to prevent serious health harm.  

The case was dismissed and sent back to the appeals court. Idaho doctors will be able to perform emergency abortions while the case makes its way through the courts.

Missouri law bans all abortions, with no exception for rape and incest. Abortions are allowed for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person or “create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” Under the EMTALA law, Missourians experiencing life-threatening injury or illness can receive an abortion to prevent death, to stabilize the patient’s health, or to prevent grave harm to the patient’s health.

 

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food & Drug Administration

The Supreme Court upheld the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for distributing Mifepristone, a commonly used abortion bill, by mail and telemedicine in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food & Drug Administration. In a 9-0 ruling, the justices found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

The continued access to Mifepristone allows survivors of domestic and sexual violence in states where abortion is legal to access care for unwanted pregnancies.

Survivors of domestic and sexual violence often experience reproductive coercion including denied access to contraceptives and abortion care. Approximately 1 in 5 young women reported experiencing reproductive coercion. As many as one-quarter of women of reproductive age accessing healthcare providers for sexual and reproductive health services reported a history of experiencing reproductive coercion at some point in their lives.

Pregnancy can increase a person’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence, and abusive partners often exercise reproductive coercion over their victims. Survivors of IPV who experience reproductive coercion are less likely to be able to make decisions about family planning and contraception because of the dynamics of power and control present in abusive relationships.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration allows survivors of domestic and sexual violence access to reproductive care after experiencing reproductive coercion and violence from their partners.

Missouri law bans all abortions, with no exception for rape and incest. Abortions are allowed for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person or “create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” This law prevents Missouri residents from accessing abortion medications by mail.

National Crime Victimization Survey. (2005). https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2005-revised

Tarzia, L. & Hagerty, K. (2021). A conceptual re-evaluation of reproductive coercion: Centering intent, fear, and control. https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-021-01143-6
Rowlands, S. & Walker, S. (2019). Reproductive control by others: Means, perpetrators, and effects. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. (45) 61- 7. https://srh.bmj.com/content/45/1/61